This might actually be the worst standard meta ever

Play Mode Discussion
01/13/2019 11:23 PMPosted by osumatthew
News flash: it's always the worst meta ever. During LoE people complained about Renolock and Secret Paladin, During WOG and Karazhan people complained about Shaman, during MSG people complained about pirate warrior, during KFT people complained about Jade Druid. Even during JUG post Quest Rogue nerf, one of the best, if not the best, and most balanced metas in the game's history people complained about "discover Mage."

The point is, no matter how good the game is, someone will always be complaining and claiming that the present meta is the "worst" in the game's history.
But let’s be a little more discerning and critical here. There’s mere complaining and then there’s factually bad statistics. I think the meta here does rank with some of the worst that HS has seen. “Feels bad” and “Is bad” applies to this meta. You may have some metas like the one a few weeks ago where it only “feels bad” but from a diversity lens was quite good. Here, this meta on nearly all objective bases “is bad.”
01/11/2019 09:52 PMPosted by Geoxyx
and I played during kharazan shamanstone. At least then I could interact with the enemy decks. Every single deck in this meta is absolutely garbage to play against.

This new hybrid hunter !@#$ that's playing beasts and secrets to upgrade 5 mana 12/12. Rexxar is autowin vs anything control, zuljin autowin vs anything aggro. If it's not that, it's cube hunter summoning and cubing 8/8s or 7/7s charge. You kill their deathrattles so they don't activate them, and they just cube the 5/5s or whatever anyway.

Clone priest which is honestly the most cancerous thing I have ever seen. Just abuse resurrect mechanics over and over, deal 20 damage with each mind blast or 12 with holy smite. Get them low, and they manage to somehow get a copy of malygos or velen to spirit lash to full health, off 3 or 4 god damn minions.

There is otk paladin which now seems to be just draw, draw, draw. Clear with pyroquality or consecrate. Heal to full health with one shirvalla and crystalsmith.

This is honestly, IMO, the worst meta that they have ever created. These decks don't do anything to interact with you. At least in wild you see much more varied decks, but roll into the occasional turn 3 barnes.


My opinion is that Hunter is not some problem, IDK i don't lose much against him, and it's RNG based (alot), i mean Zul'Jin, Zombeast, random companion, 2 random companions, secret plan and so on... OTK Paladin, been playing it myself, it's strong control deck, but if you get abused untill turn 5/6 and you don't have the answer you will lose. And about Clone Priest, the most stupid and cancerous deck ever made in Hearhstone, you can trade him, you can put him to low health, you will still lose to turn 9, because Zerek's Cloning Gallery into The Coin, then you get Malygos, and Vellen, and use Mind Blast, and Smite...
01/14/2019 12:07 AMPosted by Balmain
01/13/2019 11:23 PMPosted by osumatthew
News flash: it's always the worst meta ever. During LoE people complained about Renolock and Secret Paladin, During WOG and Karazhan people complained about Shaman, during MSG people complained about pirate warrior, during KFT people complained about Jade Druid. Even during JUG post Quest Rogue nerf, one of the best, if not the best, and most balanced metas in the game's history people complained about "discover Mage."

The point is, no matter how good the game is, someone will always be complaining and claiming that the present meta is the "worst" in the game's history.
But let’s be a little more discerning and critical here. There’s mere complaining and then there’s factually bad statistics. I think the meta here does rank with some of the worst that HS has seen. “Feels bad” and “Is bad” applies to this meta. You may have some metas like the one a few weeks ago where it only “feels bad” but from a diversity lens was quite good. Here, this meta on nearly all objective bases “is bad.”


You might have enjoyed that meta more, but there’s plenty of people who didn’t. That meta was the most stale post expansion ever in the history of Hearthstone. Can I guess that you prefer combo/OTK decks?

Just rewind back to this same forum and you will have seen a ton of Kingsbane, combo/OTK, and “control is unplayable” complaint threads. It wasn’t just “feels bad” if you tried playing control decks it was impossible between Shudderwock, Druid, and Kingsbane; which were in addition to all of the Hunters with Rexxar.

The determining factor as to whether a deck was optimized (outside of Hunter and Kingsbane) was that it didn’t play new cards.

Odd Paladin’s win rate was 3+ points higher than any other decks in both HSREPLAY and VS, and VS was projecting Even Paladin would become second best, which it did after the nerfs a few weeks later.

Yes there’s less total decks because there’s less combo/OTK, but now there’s control decks that are playable.
01/14/2019 04:14 AMPosted by Marcoscongas
01/14/2019 12:07 AMPosted by Balmain
...But let’s be a little more discerning and critical here. There’s mere complaining and then there’s factually bad statistics. I think the meta here does rank with some of the worst that HS has seen. “Feels bad” and “Is bad” applies to this meta. You may have some metas like the one a few weeks ago where it only “feels bad” but from a diversity lens was quite good. Here, this meta on nearly all objective bases “is bad.”


You might have enjoyed that meta more, but there’s plenty of people who didn’t. That meta was the most stale post expansion ever in the history of Hearthstone. Can I guess that you prefer combo/OTK decks?

Just rewind back to this same forum and you will have seen a ton of Kingsbane, combo/OTK, and “control is unplayable” complaint threads. It wasn’t just “feels bad” if you tried playing control decks it was impossible between Shudderwock, Druid, and Kingsbane; which were in addition to all of the Hunters with Rexxar.

The determining factor as to whether a deck was optimized (outside of Hunter and Kingsbane) was that it didn’t play new cards.

Odd Paladin’s win rate was 3+ points higher than any other decks in both HSREPLAY and VS, and VS was projecting Even Paladin would become second best, which it did after the nerfs a few weeks later.

Yes there’s less total decks because there’s less combo/OTK, but now there’s control decks that are playable.


Sorry to say but the "control players" always say that control is unplayable to a point that most can't even take they serious anymore.

Actually it is so unjustified and unreasonable that it divides the comunity.
01/14/2019 04:14 AMPosted by Marcoscongas
01/14/2019 12:07 AMPosted by Balmain
...But let’s be a little more discerning and critical here. There’s mere complaining and then there’s factually bad statistics. I think the meta here does rank with some of the worst that HS has seen. “Feels bad” and “Is bad” applies to this meta. You may have some metas like the one a few weeks ago where it only “feels bad” but from a diversity lens was quite good. Here, this meta on nearly all objective bases “is bad.”


You might have enjoyed that meta more, but there’s plenty of people who didn’t. That meta was the most stale post expansion ever in the history of Hearthstone. Can I guess that you prefer combo/OTK decks?

Just rewind back to this same forum and you will have seen a ton of Kingsbane, combo/OTK, and “control is unplayable” complaint threads. It wasn’t just “feels bad” if you tried playing control decks it was impossible between Shudderwock, Druid, and Kingsbane; which were in addition to all of the Hunters with Rexxar.

The determining factor as to whether a deck was optimized (outside of Hunter and Kingsbane) was that it didn’t play new cards.

Odd Paladin’s win rate was 3+ points higher than any other decks in both HSREPLAY and VS, and VS was projecting Even Paladin would become second best, which it did after the nerfs a few weeks later.

Yes there’s less total decks because there’s less combo/OTK, but now there’s control decks that are playable.
Post release of Rumble the meta was still evolving. No staleness there. Kingsbane has only gotten to become viable for the first time as a potential tier1 deck. Druid was beginning to see a decline. We will never know how the meta would have naturally evolved without Blizzard’s interference.
Bottom line. Hearthstone isn't fun anymore. It feels like a chore instead of a video game.
01/14/2019 06:08 AMPosted by Balmain
Post release of Rumble the meta was still evolving. No staleness there. Kingsbane has only gotten to become viable for the first time as a potential tier1 deck. Druid was beginning to see a decline. We will never know how the meta would have naturally evolved without Blizzard’s interference.

I digress; it was reported to be working as a mere extension of BDP meta since people weren't trying most of the new cards and the top decks didn't need them -go check again, is all there

meta right now is basically 2 weeks old, you have to discount all the entire first month since release because of the nerf and the holidays were most poeple don't play; it is steadily evolving right now, and not precissely slowly
Hunter, combo, combo, combo, hunter hunter hunter hunter combo combo combo.

Crap meta, badly designed cards like mechatun...yep..
01/14/2019 06:08 AMPosted by Balmain
01/14/2019 04:14 AMPosted by Marcoscongas
...

You might have enjoyed that meta more, but there’s plenty of people who didn’t. That meta was the most stale post expansion ever in the history of Hearthstone. Can I guess that you prefer combo/OTK decks?

Just rewind back to this same forum and you will have seen a ton of Kingsbane, combo/OTK, and “control is unplayable” complaint threads. It wasn’t just “feels bad” if you tried playing control decks it was impossible between Shudderwock, Druid, and Kingsbane; which were in addition to all of the Hunters with Rexxar.

The determining factor as to whether a deck was optimized (outside of Hunter and Kingsbane) was that it didn’t play new cards.

Odd Paladin’s win rate was 3+ points higher than any other decks in both HSREPLAY and VS, and VS was projecting Even Paladin would become second best, which it did after the nerfs a few weeks later.

Yes there’s less total decks because there’s less combo/OTK, but now there’s control decks that are playable.
Post release of Rumble the meta was still evolving. No staleness there. Kingsbane has only gotten to become viable for the first time as a potential tier1 deck. Druid was beginning to see a decline. We will never know how the meta would have naturally evolved without Blizzard’s interference.


I will take the word of VS and Hearthstone Mathematics over yours. Both saying Rastakhan was the least impactful expansion in the history of the game.

Least impactful is not the same as 0% impactful, I do understand that. Yes it was still evolving, every day more and more people eliminated Rastakhan cards from their decks. And amusingly enough the Rastakhan cards dropping in occurrence continued post nerf.
No argument that Rumble is perhaps the least impactful. But according to HS replay and VS experimentation was still occurring and the decline of druid and other popular archetypes had already begun before Rumble. So to the extent you say the meta stagnated isnt entirely true. My whole point is that the meta prior wasn’t close to the worst that HS has seen and the current meta would have been better had Blizzard not taken the hammer to the Druid class, Kingsbane, and Shudderwock.
01/13/2019 07:14 PMPosted by Smeet
01/13/2019 06:16 PMPosted by DMX
*shrug* Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I'll be honest, this might be my favorite meta in a long while. But that's just because Quest Paladin is REALLY well balanced for this meta. There are basically no decks that are absolute unwinnable matchups. Sure, sometimes the hunter gets Rexxar on 6, and sure, sometimes rez priest gets the early otk on you. But, for the most part, my galvadon deck is kicking !@# so far.


I think it is important to remember that everyone has different preferences in the game. Some people genuinely enjoy the current game state, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I personally dislike it for the reasons I have described here and in other threads, but there's still plenty of room for disagreement! :)

Just stay respectful my friends!


No, I wont. If this game were live there would be dead nerds everywhere. Lucky for them it isnt.
And here I am playing Wild, pulling up a chair and eating popcorn as I'm watching players in Standard running around like chickens with their heads cut off. This is exactly how it felt like to play against Giantslock and the various Druid Combo decks. Congratulations, now YOUR end has to suffer through all the bull!@#$ Wild went through the past 15 months. Doesn't feel too good, now does it?

It's not like Wild is there, and the format clamps down on most Hunter decks. Granted Big Priest exists, but they make up so little of the Wild format. Reno decks have returned to prominence, stronger deck options in Wild, Shudderwock has a way to exist via Doppelgangster - I'm having the time of my life over in Wild.

Go play some Wild - it'll do wonders for your sanity.
01/14/2019 04:11 PMPosted by Balmain
No argument that Rumble is perhaps the least impactful. But according to HS replay and VS experimentation was still occurring and the decline of druid and other popular archetypes had already begun before Rumble. So to the extent you say the meta stagnated isnt entirely true. My whole point is that the meta prior wasn’t close to the worst that HS has seen and the current meta would have been better had Blizzard not taken the hammer to the Druid class, Kingsbane, and Shudderwock.


I didn’t claim worst, I claimed most stale. And I am further claiming that under a most stale circumstance Blizz was justified in doing a balance patch quicker than ever before.

I am not defending how it wasn’t announced leading to a bunch of folks making crafting decisions they wouldn’t have otherwise, and I think Druid was over nerfed.

I openly admit to preferring tempo based post nerf decks over the tempo denial value based decks the pre nerf meta was defined by and have 0 sympathy for Ice Cream Shudderwock 3 hour games and never dying Kingsbane. And I admit it as a personal preference rather than the personal preference you made and tried to pass off as a universal claim for the whole HS community.

I am not alone in my preference, see the latest Brian Kibler video.
01/14/2019 09:19 PMPosted by Marcoscongas
01/14/2019 04:11 PMPosted by Balmain
No argument that Rumble is perhaps the least impactful. But according to HS replay and VS experimentation was still occurring and the decline of druid and other popular archetypes had already begun before Rumble. So to the extent you say the meta stagnated isnt entirely true. My whole point is that the meta prior wasn’t close to the worst that HS has seen and the current meta would have been better had Blizzard not taken the hammer to the Druid class, Kingsbane, and Shudderwock.


I didn’t claim worst, I claimed most stale. And I am further claiming that under a most stale circumstance Blizz was justified in doing a balance patch quicker than ever before.

I am not defending how it wasn’t announced leading to a bunch of folks making crafting decisions they wouldn’t have otherwise, and I think Druid was over nerfed.

I openly admit to preferring tempo based post nerf decks over the tempo denial value based decks the pre nerf meta was defined by and have 0 sympathy for Ice Cream Shudderwock 3 hour games and never dying Kingsbane. And I admit it as a personal preference rather than the personal preference you made and tried to pass off as a universal claim for the whole HS community.

I am not alone in my preference, see the latest Brian Kibler video.
I don’t think it’s necessary to prelude every post with a disclaimer stating that the statements are my opinions and observations which will of course carry a degree of bias. I don’t think I ever said I spoke for the community so I’m not sure why you feel that way.

I’m merely disagreeing with your claim that this is the most stale meta and offered my opposing view. We can argue until the cows come home about what “stale” or “worst” means. I have referenced HS replay and VS to show that objectively the meta wasn’t as bad as you’ve put compared to past metas. If you nevertheless still disagree that’s okay too because what you consider stale might be based off a different metric and that’s fine.
01/15/2019 02:31 AMPosted by Balmain
01/14/2019 09:19 PMPosted by Marcoscongas
...

I didn’t claim worst, I claimed most stale. And I am further claiming that under a most stale circumstance Blizz was justified in doing a balance patch quicker than ever before.

I am not defending how it wasn’t announced leading to a bunch of folks making crafting decisions they wouldn’t have otherwise, and I think Druid was over nerfed.

I openly admit to preferring tempo based post nerf decks over the tempo denial value based decks the pre nerf meta was defined by and have 0 sympathy for Ice Cream Shudderwock 3 hour games and never dying Kingsbane. And I admit it as a personal preference rather than the personal preference you made and tried to pass off as a universal claim for the whole HS community.

I am not alone in my preference, see the latest Brian Kibler video.
I don’t think it’s necessary to prelude every post with a disclaimer stating that the statements are my opinions and observations which will of course carry a degree of bias. I don’t think I ever said I spoke for the community so I’m not sure why you feel that way.

I’m merely disagreeing with your claim that this is the most stale meta and offered my opposing view. We can argue until the cows come home about what “stale” or “worst” means. I have referenced HS replay and VS to show that objectively the meta wasn’t as bad as you’ve put compared to past metas. If you nevertheless still disagree that’s okay too because what you consider stale might be based off a different metric and that’s fine.


I don’t like how you say you disagree but you don’t explain why or how. I can neither acquiesce nor provide a counterpoint to your opinion if you don’t express it.

If Rastakhan isn’t it then which was the most stale meta in HS History? And by which metrics would you qualify it that way?

I specified multiple times Stale and Bad were not synonymous, I would appreciate if you stop using them that way to describe my viewpoint; as well as differentiating between the two in your response.
Already explained and expressed. Others in this thread have given examples.

You’re the one who adopted the word “stale” to express your feelings for this meta. I’m merely using your language. If you actually read my prior response, the tone and attitude was entirely conciliatory. I’ve made my opinion that happens to take a differing view from yours. Neither of us are incorrect because what we accept as “stale” depends on what we look to gauge that determination. I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m only sharing my view. I think at this juncture you’re just arguing for the sake of argument.
01/14/2019 08:12 AMPosted by Tyani
Hunter, combo, combo, combo, hunter hunter hunter hunter combo combo combo.

Crap meta, badly designed cards like mechatun...yep..

Turn on your computer/tablet/phone, click on hearthstone, click uninstall. Problem solved!!!!
1 .pre nerf rastakhan was in fact the most stale metagame ever.

2. You can't use staleness as the only metric to define a metagame.
Most stale =/ worse.

3. Rastakhan is probably the worse expansion hearthstone had. That because it did not to the game when it came.

It doesn't matter why it not changed.What matter is result and not from who is the fault of rastakhan do almost nothing by itself.
01/13/2019 10:48 PMPosted by Balmain
People are quick to point out that other metas have been worse. But is that a meaningful justification for this one, even if we accept we have seen worse? That’s just a cop out argument.


Now take this logic and apply it to the title of this thread. You see , those comments are not justification for a problematic meta, it's a refutation to a hyperbolic claim.

So if we are being reasonable about the state of the meta, why not express the issues without resorting to extreme hyperboles that anyone who has been through an undertaker meta nightmare knows to be false?

Wouldn't that be more meaningful as well? Either you want a meaningful justification or not, so you should apply the same standards to the OP as well.

TLDR: You don't have to start threads with "X is the worst thing since unsliced bread" to make a valid point.
https://imgur.com/a/Dfnddi8

Yeah still going for a 2nd win as a Preist in casual got a Hunter for the next game.

Everything was even until turn 8. DK Rexxar. I am sure if my opponent wanted to they could have played DK Rexxar on turn 6 but Savannah Lion was the wiser choice on 6. At least my opponent said "Well Played" after Rexxar dropped. By why do players do that I wonder? Why do they say "Well Played" after certain cards drop? Is it because they know how OP they are or that its Causal and those cards are even more OP there?

But not that old Sexy Rexy is out there...

Oh look at that Zombie 1 is a Rhino With Poison and Taunt. Sure why not.
Next Zombie is a Hydra with Poisonous sure why not.

https://imgur.com/a/Dfnddi8

When the RNG is in a groove its and a groove. Well game was over in Casual once Dk Rexxar dropped on 8. My lack luster Priest library has nothing to contend with top tier decks in casual.

Very boring trying to get 2 wins today as a priest for a whopping 50 gold. Started to watch TV while Hearthstone does its usual boring thing. Totally agree OP. Game has lost all value as there is little to zero interaction.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum